Much more of a straight-up action-comedy than my favourite Pixar movies, but as a piece of cinema, it’s so well-made, I can’t complain. I’m not sure it’s a movie I’ll be revisiting often, but I still admired the hell out pretty much every technical and storytelling aspect.
So where does it fit into the full ordering of Pixar flicks?
The Incredibles > WALL·E > Ratatouille > Finding Nemo > Toy Story > http://philldiscgolf.com/0z.php Up > Monsters Inc > Toy Story 2 > Bug’s Life > Cars.
For a Trek movie, Star Trek makes a pretty good Star Wars movie. It has lots of chases and shootouts and space battles. It has lame, obvious humour, winking callbacks to previous instalments, and meaningless blah-blah about “destiny”. Plus, cute alien sidekicks. All of which I kind of dug in the way I still dig, say, Return of the Jedi.
What it’s missing is the retarded-brilliant worldview of the original series. I never got into any of the later Trek series, but I watched the original series as a kid, and I’ve been rewatching it on DVD over the past year. Gene Roddenberry had a crystal-clear vision of future human society as the ultimate secular-humanist fantasy: a perfect multiracial (and ideologically homogeneous) science-based utopia, free from war and religion and prejudice — a universe where the space-babes are all sexually liberated and everybody is self-actualized up the yin-yang. The best episodes of the original series deal with what happens when our crew of altruists comes into conflict with beings and societies that don’t share their 1960s-liberal values. (The worst involve alien women stealing Spock’s brain.)
Now, I’m no advocate for sticking with the source material: if you’re going to do a remake/reboot/whatever, I’d rather see you pick and choose what to keep and put a new spin on things. But I’m slightly saddened that JJ Abrams felt he had to dumb down a 1960s TV show about a planet-hopping space-stud and his loyal buddies, just because it had a bunch of, you know: ideas. Case in point: the pure plot-device villain. Even the Gorn had a more interesting motivation than Eric Bana did.
All that said, though, Trek is a fun movie, and I really enjoyed seeing new actors doing their own takes on familiar characters. I liked the in-joke of Sulu’s “combat training” being fencing (and the payoff later). I’m glad Uhura finally had something to do other than answer the phone. And how awesome was it to see Simon Pegg as Scottie? If you’re dead set on making Scottie the comic relief, for God’s sake, you’ve gotta cast the Pegg.
How’s this for a premise? Jason Statham falls about a mile from a helicopter and is literally shovelled off the asphalt by Chinese organ thieves who steal his heart for their 100-year-old boss (David Carradine). He wakes up to find he’s been fitted with an artificial heart, and proceeds to tear apart the Los Angeles underworld to get back his “strawberry tart”. Only catch is, to keep going, he needs to constantly charge up by electrocuting himself. I know it sounds like I’m pranking you, but I swear, it’s a real movie. And Jesus, what a movie.
With a premise like that, backed by utter conviction and an understanding of the world apparently formed solely from video games, porn, daytime talk shows and Godzilla movies, Crank: High Voltage delivers… something. I’m not quite sure what it delivers, but it’s something pretty great. You should probably go see it now so that when the inevitable cult forms, you can say you were into it before anyone.
So according to internet legend, Troll 2 was made with an American cast by an Italian director who barely spoke English and insisted the lines be read verbatim from his script. That maybe begins to explain this insane and insanely-bad film, but can’t fully account for the ludicrous acting, amateurish “monster” effects (burlap sacks and immobile masks) or the complete lack of trolls of any sort. It also can’t explain the film’s bizarre fixation on vegetarianism as the moral equivalent of a death cult — it approaches plant-eating with the prurient tut-tutting of a 1960s exploitation flick. But with less nudity.
We watched the RiffTrax version, which was entertaining, but even without it, I think this is probably one of the very films that’s so bad it’s better than good. Even at it’s most retarded, it’s rarely boring.
I’ve been on a big Patton Oswalt kick lately, and on his album Werewolves and Lollipops he talks about this movie at length. So, you know, go follow that link and listen to the bit. It’s hilarious.
And then doing a little research on the internet, I found that this movie has a whole elaborate history to it — beyond the incredible fact a movie about an eating bed was made at all. The first-time (and only-time) director George Barry started the movie in 1972 as a labour of love, finally finished it five years later, and then found nobody wanted to buy it. Period. Not even for the price of striking a print. He shelved it and went on with his life (I think he ran a used book store in Detroit), but unbeknownst to him, one of his development labs somehow pirated it, and it bounced around Europe for decades as a (very) minor underground phenom in the pre-internet. Finally, an astonished Barry found out about the cult it had attracted and give it a much-belated release on DVD in 2002.
So how is Death Bed: The Bed That Eats? Worth the wait? Well, first off, it clearly is a labour of love. Most luridly-titled horror flicks fail to deliver on the title’s promise (see Killdozer, The Brain That Wouldn’t Die, or every single movie ever released by the turd factory that is Troma), but not this one — this movie is clearly the work of a man who sought to tell the story of an eating bed. It eats gangsters, hippies, priests and orgies, not to mention flowers, fried chicken, cigars and suitcases, all of which sink into the bed’s “stomach” (a vat of coloured water), accompanied by hearty chomping and chewing sounds.
Weird enough, but that doesn’t even begin to get at just how balls-out bizarre this movie is. For one thing, the movie is narrated by the spirit of an pissed-off-sounding artist who lives behind a painting overlooking the bed. Also, the bed itself falls asleep (and snores), which just raises all kinds of questions. And in the movie’s strangest sequence, a man survives the death bed only to have the flesh eaten from his hands, but instead of, you know: screaming in agony, like you or I might be inclined to do, he just stares forlornly at the skeletal hands emerging from the sleeves of his blazer until his sister helps him out by breaking off the bones and throwing them into a fire!
Unfortunately, while Death Bed gets mad props for effort and originality, it’s easier to admire than to enjoy. It may have El Topo-to-Eraserhead levels of weirdness, but it has the technical proficiency (and budget) of Manos: The Hands of Fate. Half of it is shot in painfully bad day-for-night, and the entire (dubbed) cast acts like they’ve just had a big lunch and are looking for a place to take a nap. Though, hmmm, napping… sleeping… bed… maybe that’s the point?